RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03954
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 Jun 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Air Force Commendation Medal  (AFCM)  (Second  Oak  Leaf  Cluster)
(2OLC) awarded to him for the period 1 Apr 98 to 26 Apr 02 be used  in
the promotion process for  cycle  05E7  and  he  receive  supplemental
promotion consideration to the  grade  of  master  sergeant  for  that
cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a letter to his squadron commander, dated 21 Jul 05  the  applicant
provides the background regarding his  decoration.   In  Apr  02,  his
supervisor advised him he was recommending him for the AFCM due to the
applicant’s permanent change of assignment (PCA).   When  he  did  not
hear anything regarding the decoration after  almost  six  months,  he
spoke to his supervisor again and was advised the decoration had  been
“placed in the system” and was still in coordination.  He then checked
with his unit orderly room at his new assignment and was informed they
had no record of the decoration.  Since he had  already  checked  with
his supervisor, he took no further action at the time.   Occasionally,
over the next two years he would check at  the  orderly  room  without
results.  He finally went  back  to  his  former  supervisor  when  he
realized he was scheduled to retire.  He also attaches  a  copy  of  a
letter from his former supervisor  certifying  he  had  submitted  the
applicant for the AFCM back in 2002.

The applicant attaches a copy of a message  from  AFPC/DPPPWM  denying
his request for supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 05E7.

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  submits  a  copy  of  his
decoration and the awarding  special  order,  a  message  denying  his
request for supplemental promotion from AFPC/DPPPWM, his letter to his
former commander, and a letter from his former supervisor.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant (TSgt).  He entered active duty in the Air Force on
9 Jan 86.   According  to  the  military  personnel  data  system  the
applicant received overall ratings of “5” on his  last  five  enlisted
performance  reports  (EPRs)   The   applicant   has   the   following
decorations:

        a.  Air Force Achievement Medal with one oak leaf cluster.

        b.  Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak  leaf  clusters.
This  includes  the  medal  the  applicant  is  seeking   supplemental
promotion consideration on.

During cycle 05 E7, the applicant had a total weighted promotion score
of 330.01 and the score required for  selection  in  his  Control  Air
Force Specialty Code was 330.10.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Although he
has provided a letter  of  support  from  his  supervisor  stating  he
recommended the applicant for the decoration sometime in 2002, he  was
not the approval authority.

AFPC/DPPPWB notes that if the applicant’s  decoration  is  counted  in
cycle 05E&, he  would  become  a  selectee  for  promotion  pending  a
favorable data  verification  check  and  the  recommendation  of  his
commander.

According to AFI  36-2502,  paragraph  2.3.4.2,  to  be  eligible  for
promotion an airman must review their data verification rip (DVR)  and
report any errors to the  military  personnel  flight.   The  policies
regarding the approval of a decoration and the credit of a  decoration
for promotion purposes are two separate and distinct policies.  AFI 36-
2502, Table 2.2, Rule 7, Note 2) dictates that before a decoration  is
credited for a specific promotion cycle,  the  closeout  date  of  the
decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff  Date
(PECD) and the date of the Décor-6, “Request for Decoration Printout,”
must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question.   The
PECD for the cycle  in  question  was  31  Dec  04.   In  addition,  a
decoration a member claims was lost, downgraded, etc., must  be  fully
documented and verified that it  was  placed  into  official  channels
prior to the promotion selection date.  In this case AFCM (2OLC)  does
not qualify because the selections were made on 6 Jun 05 and the Décor-
6 was not signed putting the  recommendation  into  official  channels
until 12 Oct 05.  AFPC/DPPPWB notes that this policy was initiated  on
28 Feb 79 specifically to preclude personnel from subsequently  (after
promotion selections) submitting  someone  for  a  decoration  with  a
retroactive decoration effective date so  as  to  put  them  over  the
selection cutoff score.   Exceptions  are  only  considered  when  the
airman can support that  a  submission  was  previously  made  through
documentation or statements including  conclusive  evidence  that  the
decoration was placed into official  channels  within  the  prescribed
time limit and conclusive evidence the recommendation  was  not  acted
upon through loss or advertence.

After  an  extensive  review  of  the  circumstances  of   this   case
AFPC/DPPPWB  has  determined  there  is  no  conclusive  evidence  the
decoration was submitted before the date of  selection  for  the  05E7
cycle.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13  Jan  06
for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a  response  has  not
been received.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, the majority  of  the  Board  agrees  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary  responsibility  and
adopts its  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of
the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2005-
03954 in Executive Session on 23 February 2006, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny applicant’s request.   Ms.
Mulligan voted to grant the applicant’s requests but did not desire to
submit a minority report.   The  following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Jan 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jan 06.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair



MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                  FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
(AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency